From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Sep 18, 1991
815 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Opinion

No. 150-89.

June 26, 1991. Rehearing Denied September 18, 1991.

Appeal from the 227th Judicial District, Bexar County; Mike Machado, J.

Nelson Norman, Larry Zinn, San Antonio, for appellant.

Fred G. Rodriguez, Dist. Atty., and Daniel Thornberry, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.


OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW


Appellant was convicted by a jury of aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to fifty years' confinement. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction. Rodriguez v. State, 762 S.W.2d 727 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1988). This Court granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding (1) an objection which merely cites Article 38.072, V.A.C.C.P., is insufficient to put the trial court and the State on notice that there was noncompliance with one of the many provisions contained within that Article, and (2) Article 38.072 is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to the facts of this case. Upon further review of the case, however, we find that appellant's petition for discretionary review was improvidently granted. Tex.R.App.P. 200(k). As in every case where we determine that the decision to grant review was improvident, we do not necessarily adopt either the language or reasoning of the lower court.

Accordingly, appellant's petition for discretionary review is dismissed.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc
Sep 18, 1991
815 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. State

Case Details

Full title:Joe RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc

Date published: Sep 18, 1991

Citations

815 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

Citing Cases

Watrous v. State

We disagree. Appellant admitted trying to apply vaseline to the child's vagina, but that he stopped when she…

Olivas v. State

In particular, "a failure to object to the absence of a hearing provided for under article 38.072, § 2(b)(2)…